War and Peace — and Deceit — in Islam (Part 1)
To defeat the aims of radical Muslims, the West must understand the role of deception in Islamic warfare.
Editor’s note: Substantial portions of the following essay make up part of Mr. Ibrahim’s forthcoming written testimony to be presented to Congress.
Today, in a time of wars and rumors of wars emanating from the Islamic world — from the current conflict in Gaza, to the saber-rattling of nuclear-armed Pakistan and soon-to-be Iran — the need for non-Muslims to better understand Islam’s doctrines and objectives concerning war and peace, and everything in between (treaties, diplomacy), has become pressing. For instance, what does one make of the fact that, after openly and vociferously making it clear time and time again that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel annihilated, Hamas also pursues “peace treaties,” including various forms of concessions from Israel — and more puzzling, receives them?
Before being in a position to answer such questions, one must first appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of mainstream (Sunni) Islam. Amazingly, for all the talk that Islam is constantly being “misunderstood” or “misinterpreted” by “radicals,” the fact is, as opposed to most other religions, Islam is a clearly defined faith admitting of no ambiguity: indeed, according to Sharia (i.e., “Islam’s way of life,” more commonly translated as “Islamic law”) every conceivable human act is categorized as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory. “Common sense” or “universal opinion” has little to do with Islam’s notions of right and wrong. All that matters is what Allah (via the Koran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the hadith) have to say about any given subject, and how Islam’s greatest theologians and jurists — collectively known as the ulema, literally, the “ones who know” — have articulated it.
Consider the concept of lying. According to Sharia, deception is not only permitted in certain situations but is sometimes deemed obligatory. For instance, and quite contrary to early Christian tradition, not only are Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatized; many jurists have decreed that, according to Koran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie.
The doctrine of taqiyya
Much of this revolves around the pivotal doctrine of taqiyya, which is often euphemized as “religious dissembling,” though in reality simply connotes “Muslim deception vis-à-vis infidels.” According to the authoritative Arabic text Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam, “Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era [p. 7; my own translation].”
Some erroneously believe that taqiyya is an exclusively Shia doctrine: as a minority group interspersed among their traditional enemies, the much more numerous Sunnis, Shias have historically had more “reason” to dissemble. Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in a similar situation, as they are now the minority surrounded by their historic enemies — Christian infidels.
The primary Koranic verse sanctioning deception vis-à-vis non-Muslims states: “Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (3:28; other verses referenced by the ulema in support of taqiyya include 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 16:106, 22:78, 40:28).
Al-Tabari’s (d. 923) famous tafsir (exegesis of the Koran) is a standard and authoritative reference work in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he writes: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.”
Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373, second in authority only to Tabari) writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion, Abu Darda, who said, “Let us smile to the face of some people [non-Muslims] while our hearts curse them”; another companion, al-Hassan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”
Other prominent ulema, such as al-Qurtubi, al-Razi, and al-Arabi, have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels — including by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, even exposing fellow Muslims’ weaknesses to the infidel enemy — anything short of actually killing a Muslim.
Is this why the Muslim American sergeant Hasan Akbar attacked and killed his fellow servicemen in Iraq in 2003? Had his pretense of loyalty finally come up against a wall when he realized Muslims might die at his hands? He had written in his diary: “I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill.”
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Raymond Ibrahim is the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
65 Comments
1. SAF:Very informative, nice piece looking forward to part 2.
Those of us who never thought Islam was a religion of peace now have more incite into the philosophy that allows parents to send their kids forth in suicide bomber belts. Those of us who think the problem is with the west will try and explain this away in all manner of sticking ones head in the sand.
But then again many Israelis, who live with this violence on a daily basis don’t get it. Why should Americans or Europeans?
Feb 12, 2009 - 2:56 am 2. Noah:Many Israelis deny this truth because they fear conflict. There can be no end to our conflict with the arabs as long as their society embraces these values. Therefore we can only have peace by destroying the society or the people of the society. Since we do not engage in mass murder we are left with but one option for long term peace – destroying the “values” that make up arab society. We have no international support for this. To attempt this on our own we would have to conquer the independent territory of Gaza and re-occupy the PA controlled west bank, suspend freedom of speech and forcibly reshape the education/media/religious system that teaches these “values”. Most Israelis are unwilling to put our people at risk to try to force the arabs to embrace values such as freedom, democracy and justice. So the prevailing opinion seems to be to contain them and let them destroy themselves.
Feb 12, 2009 - 3:55 am 3. eon:“All warfare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity. When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are near. Offer an enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him. When he concentrates, prepare against him; where he is strong, avoid him. Anger his general and confuse him. Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance. Keep him under a strain and wear him down. When he is united, divide him.”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 1, “Estimates”.
This work dates to the late 6th Century A.D., and is considered a fundamental work on military strategy even today. Considering that the MidEast was the primary avenue of communication between China and the West from the 5th Century on (Google “Silk Route”), and that Muhammed was a well-educated man of his time and place, it would be very unsafe to assume that he was unaware of this essay and the principles it lays down.
If you want to understand the Islamist way of making war, study Sun Tzu. And be aware that in their principles, strategy is planned not in terms of years, but of generations.
clear ether
eon
Feb 12, 2009 - 4:11 am 4. SAF:#2 Noah:
Succinctly put.
Feb 12, 2009 - 6:05 am 5. huxley:“I know, but I’m currently living in Mecca.” That was the cherry on the top of this insightful article.
I’m now reconsidering all the dialogs I have read between Muslims and the West in which Muslims defended the peacefulness of their religion by quoting the innocent verses from the Koran and protesting the use of the violent quotes.
It always seemed to me that Muslims were blind to the intolerance and violence of Islam. Now I must consider that they were being intentionally dishonest.
Feb 12, 2009 - 6:57 am 6. Steve P.:There is no such thing as a religion of peace.
Feb 12, 2009 - 7:22 am 7. pat:“For instance, and quite contrary to early Christian tradition, not only are Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatized; many jurists have decreed that, according to Koran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie.” it the 4:29 refering to [4:29] O you who believe, do not consume each others’ properties illicitly – only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you.
was there a mistake? I cannot see the lie part since unless “illicitly” means to lie rather than break laws? ( not that there was much in the way of law courts for the ordinary people back then the way there is now to “twist” agreements. For example-information deeply buried in “small print” )
According to wordweb illicitly is:1 In a manner disapproved or not allowed by custom :2 In an illegal manner
Feb 12, 2009 - 7:28 am 8. Laura:It is a well-known fact that Moslems inflate the number of their own casualties. Having worked at the Israeli Consulate in Toronto during the 1st Intifada, I saw first-hand how Palestinians manipulated the media, distorted facts, submitted photos of dead and wounded Israelis and pawned them off as their own people. As someone who lived in the Middle East for several years, I can attest that lying is part of the culture. They do it to save face. Honour is paramount to Arabs. I do not believe one single word that comes out of the Arab press. They are expert propagandists.
Feb 12, 2009 - 7:54 am 9. Lynn's:“O you who believe, do not consume each other’s properties illicitly”
I think that means that Muslims should not covet or steal from each other and therefore it is implied that it is OK for believers to steal from non-Muslims.
“You shall not kill yourselves”
I think might mean that if you are threatened to deny Islam or die that refusing to deny Islam would be like killing yourself because the two choices are to deny or die. Now to leave Islam is a sentence of death so the choices disappear and become no choice but Islam.
The story I heard about Mohammad wanting to get rid of the mocking poet was that he never directly ordered his death but implied that something should be done to silence him. A follower said that he could get to him but would need to trick him by a lie. Mohammad told him to do what needs done. In this way the blood of the poet would be on his direct killer and could not come back to Mohammad if there was trouble. That is how I understood the story and don’t know if that is correct.
Feb 12, 2009 - 8:10 am 10. Morton Doodslag:Thank you Raymond Ibrahim. This painfully honest essay skewers the insane notion Westerners have bought into that Islam is just like any other religion they are familiar with. And Muslims are willing and eager to drive their Jihad truck through this gaping blind spot in the West and take full advantage of our good-faith ignorance on the matter. How many Westerners, for example, would be so quick to defend the religious rights of Muslims in the West if those Westerners understood that virtually EVERY aspect of life is rigidly controlled by the strict and grinding strictures of Islamic law? We in the West have virtually no template in which to place this abominable “religion”. For example, a faithful pious Muslim is strictly instucted on the most intimate of body functions and personal hygiene, down to the last detail about how, when, or where to defecate, or on the intricacies of shaving or not shaving his/her body parts. Diets are strictly controlled, and there’s no end to the rules governing the interplay between men and women, and their strictly defined roles in society.
Western liberals are on the vanguard of the champions of the “rights of Muslims” in the West. Without the slightest understanding of the totalitarian nightmare or Islam, they glibly and zealously bestow the entire range of hard won humanist western laws and traditions upon those Muslims, guaranteeing their practice of their fascist Islamic ideology without interference. Most importantly to the Muslims, the liberal Western traditions of tolerance and defense of religious freedom means that Islam may spread in the West without any impedance whatsoever. This is lethal to the selfsame liberal humanist laws of man which permit it all. Wherever Islam spreads, freedom, tolerance, human rights as we understand them, and the humanist scientific tradition of the West must axiomatically be in retreat.
If those liberal champions of the so-called rights of Muslims comprehended the vile nature of the totalitarian belief system of Islam, would they still continue to champion the practice and spread of Islam in the West? I hope they would not — but I am staggered that nearly 8 years after the atrocity of 9/11, Muslims continue to practice Islam in the West without heavy surveillance by police — most Western Liberals seem completely ignorant to the fact that the vast majority of mosques in America are controlled and paid for by the evil Saudis, and that most of the “preachers” in those mosques are trained by those same Saudis, who also pay their salaries. The treason and sedition that is occurring takes place completely under our noses, and currently spreads under the protection of our laws and traditions of liberal tolerance. Ironic, given the fact that the fist things these Muslim invaders would destroy in the West will be those self-same qualities of tolerance and protection against all Muslims.
It’s only a matter of time before the tiny unconnected communities of Muslims scattered across the West like so many poisonous mushrooms begin to coalesce into tiny Beiruts and Gaza strips. Jihad is alive and well, and living in millions of homes and mosques across our vulnerable society. By allowing Muslims into our midst in their millions, the current generation of Westerners have abrogated their duties to the extraordinary legacy they have been handed by our ancestors. Those ancestors fought and died for every right we supposedly cherish — but by allowing millions of inimical enemies into our midst, enemies whose ideology is at complete loggerheads with our own, we have imperiled our legacy, and perhaps done irreparable harm.
By the time most wake up to the mortal danger, I believe it may be too late to expel the millions of Muslims in our midst. By the time most Westerners discover their mortal blunder, it may be too late for our system to survive. Our enemy is not only through the gate, but our police and laws currently protect them, our politicians encourage them, and they spread, both by uninterrupted immigration, and by birth, to slowly gobble up infidel territory to spread Islam ever further. This is the essence of Jihad.
Feb 12, 2009 - 8:36 am 11. Morton Doodslag:above, “against all Muslims” should read “against all non-Muslims”.
Clearly the Muslims will continue to exploit our cultural tolerance and our “freedom of religion” to spread Islam, but as soon as they begin calling the shots through terror and tantrums, they will act to suppress all other expressions which they deem “un-Islamic”. This is already happening in the UK and all over Europe where Muslim densities have reached above 5% in many of their major cities. Apparently, that’s all it takes to openly begin to attack and undermine the entire edifice of the West.
Feb 12, 2009 - 8:43 am 12. Delia:I’d say “nuke ‘em back to the stone-age” except they are still LIVING in the stone-age and they want everyone ELSE to fall-back to their animalistic, tribal thinking too.
So. Maybe? Just NUKE ‘em off the face of the planet. After all, that’s what they want to do to us? Right?
;p
Feb 12, 2009 - 9:21 am 13. Wally Lind:Well, we will certainly see now. With Obama as president it is almost gauranteed that Iran will be a nuclear power. A weak sister, like Clinton, he will take not actual action to stop Iran. With a nuclear armed Iran, we will see how stridantly Islamic their leaders actually are, and how much their president’s threats represent the real polcy of their govenment and society. If the threat is real, Israel may simply take care of it with missiles and their own nuclear weapons. There will be a window between the testing of an Iranian waepon and when it is deployable, that Israel may see as their last chance to head off another holocaust. They have nothing to lose. Being on the bad side of the U.S. might be better than being dead. Then we can all live in our basements for two or three weeks. Won’t that be fun?
Feb 12, 2009 - 9:46 am 14. David W. Lincoln:As long as the message communicated by Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Bat Yeor (and all those I have not named who communicate the same message)
Feb 12, 2009 - 10:37 am 15. Laura:meets opposition, it is up to us who do not fear
light bringing to light our deeds to show the error of those who would flee the light, (just
like groundhogs on groundhog day).
#12 Delia….you just articulated what a lot of people think, but are too afraid to say.
Feb 12, 2009 - 11:35 am 16. Huckafir:#10 morton doodslag
Feb 12, 2009 - 12:05 pm 17. Steve P.:Very well put. Thank You
Yeah, because nuking an entire region of the world would not have any dire consequences for us or our allies. And of course, there aren’t any innocent civilians in those regions, so no need to worry about nuking children. I’m just glad that people like you are relegated to writing on a message board and not in any position of authority.
Feb 12, 2009 - 12:08 pm 18. David H:Spot on article, you will not be listened too you know…
Feb 12, 2009 - 12:17 pm 19. Ms. Attitude:17. Steve P.: The US will not be required to be involved in the nuclear holocaust. Once Iran is armed they will take care of this.
Feb 12, 2009 - 1:27 pm 20. Avitar:Just because the United States is not required does not mean we will not be involved.
Feb 12, 2009 - 2:30 pm 21. Delia:17. Steve P.:
Yeah, because nuking an entire region of the world would not have any dire consequences for us or our allies. And of course, there aren’t any innocent civilians in those regions, so no need to worry about nuking children. I’m just glad that people like you are relegated to writing on a message board and not in any position of authority.
~
Ever heard of “collateral damage”, Cholly? It’s US or THEM. Don’t you get it? US OR THEM. There is no bargaining, comfy cozy in-between mode with regards to these menacing pariahs on the face of humanity. THEY want to wipe us out or take us over and we’ve already tried ‘enlightening’ them to Western Civilization only to have them wield that very knowledge against us rather than grow/prosper/learn from the aforementioned.
Sometimes you nuke ‘em and bring them to their knees and THAT is when you get CHANGE you can BET on. See Truman on Japan and their kamikaze nut-jobs circa WW2.
Feb 12, 2009 - 2:51 pm 22. Joshua:The trouble with “nuking ‘em all” is that a substantial number of Islamic supremacists, including some of their most troublesome leaders, live and operate in the West. Even if we were willing to lay waste to places like Islamabad, Tehran or Mecca, would we really be willing to do the same to places like Malmo (Sweden), Amsterdam or London? I sure wouldn’t, and I doubt many other Westerners would. But if we let any significant number of supremacists survive, the whole operation would be pretty much in vain.
Feb 12, 2009 - 4:14 pm 23. stevent12x:21. Delia:
I think you are a terrible human being.
Feb 12, 2009 - 4:32 pm 24. Delia:Yeah but you send a clear and concise message that WE WON’T TAKE their PSYCHOTIC mantra any longer and it WILL shake muslims in Western countries too.
Muslims are ALL ABOUT collateral damage…that’s how they DEAL. They use innocent civlians as targets all the time and if THEY have the chance to nuke us…hold onto your butts. If WE strike first and show them we have the NADS to do it they’ll be substantially brought to their knees. THEY are a warring people and you can’t play “Patty Cake’ with them. EVER. They will laugh and think we are a bunch of pansy assed, panty waist pussies [rightfully so].
You know what playing “PEACE-MAKERS” got us? EXACTLY what you just mentioned! Now those m-fers are EVERYWHERE and all because we haven’t nuked the frick out of their tyranny and TAKEN their oil by force rather than making those whackos rich beyond belief so they could sponsor their hateful mission to destroy anyone who is not of their ‘faith’ *cough*.
NUKE ‘em!
Feb 12, 2009 - 4:40 pm 25. Delia:23. stevent12x:
21. Delia:
I think you are a terrible human being.
~
Thank you, O’ bleedin’ heart. You just made my day.
Feb 12, 2009 - 4:41 pm 26. Wonchang:13. Wally Lind “With Obama as president it is almost gauranteed that Iran will be a nuclear power. A weak sister, like Clinton, he will take not actual action to stop Iran” The jury is still out on whether Obama will continue THAT far with his appeasement. While he certainly has entertained the apologists and lick-spittles with his ‘olive-branch’ approach to Islamists, whether he will maintain that when he is eventually presented with incontravertable evidence of Irans nuke-building ambitions (remembering also it’ll be a Shiite bomb – not a Sunni one!) is another thing. The rub will be whether or not he CAN do anything about it. Embroiling America in another conflict in the region to head Iran off at the pass as it were is unthinkable – it would be a disaster. BUT, he could, if he were sneaky enough, get someone else capable and prepared to do so (of which the Israelis would have to be the most on both accounts). I’m thinking that once he’s obsorbed enough realpolitik dealing with Islam AND Iran, he may just change his present tune. We have to have that hope or its all over Red Rover. Oh, and Hilary will do whatever its in the best interests of Hilary to do – whether its appeasing Hamas or (eventually) sticking the boot into Iran and their delightful leader Iwantmedinnerdad. One must also hope that they will read Ray Ibrahim’s brilliant article – and realise that whatever is negotiated with the likes of Hamas etc, will be a readily revoked hudna at best.
Feb 12, 2009 - 4:54 pm 27. Eric:For a daily discussion of the Islamization of the West visit Gates of Vienna http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
Feb 12, 2009 - 6:31 pm 28. Nabeel:@ Eon
““All warfare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity. When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are near. Offer an enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him. When he concentrates, prepare against him; where he is strong, avoid him. Anger his general and confuse him. Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance. Keep him under a strain and wear him down. When he is united, divide him.”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 1, “Estimates”.
This work dates to the late 6th Century A.D., and is considered a fundamental work on military strategy even today. Considering that the MidEast was the primary avenue of communication between China and the West from the 5th Century on (Google “Silk Route”), and that Muhammed was a well-educated man of his time and place, it would be very unsafe to assume that he was unaware of this essay and the principles it lays down.
If you want to understand the Islamist way of making war, study Sun Tzu. And be aware that in their principles, strategy is planned not in terms of years, but of generations.”
Wrong.
Firstly, the Prophet Mohammed’s (may the best peace and blessings be upon him) lifetime was from 570AD-632AD and he only spread Islam for 23 years. Sun Tzu’s work came after the time of the Prophet (may the best peace and blessings be upon him).
Secondly, the Prophet (may the best peace and blessings be upon him) was illiterate. He was not well educated, as you say, but completely uneducated.
Feb 12, 2009 - 8:13 pm 29. Dave:Delia: You go girl!
However, before you actually grow any mushrooms,
I think a few preliminary dirty tricks are in order. Remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been meaningless without, Guadacanal,
Makin, Saipan, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, etc first.
Nukes are best employed against property, not people. The Old Man explored this in one of his early works; “Solution Unsatisfactory”.
We are in a titanic struggle between incompatible cultures. One or the other will give way. Modern times plus population density
insure that this planet ain’t big enough for both of us.
But absorb what Ibrahim is saying, then estimate
what utilizing performance bonds would do to their game. We have to fight as smart as we fight hard. No two ways about it.
Put your trust in God and keep your 1911 at full cock.
Feb 12, 2009 - 9:33 pm 30. PNUT:Delia is right. i’ve been banned from several sites for advocating the same truth. Anything less than annihilation just prolongs the inevitable with those people. I will not delude myself or others in order to be considered “nice” or “politically correct”. Arab culture only respects strength,they laugh at kindness. If we can’t or won’t be as bad or worse than them we will lose,it’s really that simple. Anything else is bullshit.
Feb 12, 2009 - 11:42 pm 31. fred:“There is no such thing as a religion of peace.”
More moral equivalency pap brought to you by a brainwashed, post-modernist, cultural Marxist dope. This is the FULL product of our currently configured educational system. And this is why our civilization is in suicide mode.
Feb 13, 2009 - 5:59 am 32. fred:#10 Morton Doodslag,
Great post. Could not have stated it better myself. Western Civilization is in suicide mode because the elites who govern us and influence our lives are too much caught up in intellectual sloth and pride to actually read the Islamic texts. Before they even open their mouths to fill us up with their pap, they close their minds to the truth.
Feb 13, 2009 - 6:04 am 33. To Delia:To Delia even so called free western nations practice collateral damage, it’s only the fact that you happen to be a person that thinks that the western way of life is acceptable as a standard that you don’t see this. Western Germany accepted Nazism for quite sometime, Americans accepted segregation for many years.
Feb 13, 2009 - 10:42 am 34. Delia:33. “Americans accepted segregation for many years”
Yeah and I wonder why? Perhaps the fear of the “Browning down” of America? That wouldn’t be happening NOW though would it? Yes, that was rhetorical.
The “Western” way of life has it’s flaws but it sure as hell beats the alternative and undocumented people will claw their way for a chance to get to U.S. soil to prove that VERY fact.
America is still a baby and has a lot of growing up left to do and hopefully our mistakes won’t set us back so far that we can’t climb out of the sand-pit that The hot house Usurper would surely love to have us in.
Thanks for listening.
Delia
Feb 13, 2009 - 11:01 am 35. Marc Malone:Delia’s both right and wrong. First, we are at war with these people. Most on our side don’t know it yet. The answer, however, is not wholesale nuking, although a carefully placed nuke might do some real good by forcing a surrender in some cases.
Banning their religion is a good first step. Quarantine would also be effective. Getting off their oil-teat would be most effective of all. Eventually, we might have to invade and ban Islam in their countries, too. Basically, there are some relatively peaceful things we can and should do. It all starts with recognizing that we are at war with Islam.
Feb 13, 2009 - 11:57 am 36. Delia:Me? Extreme? *innocent look* Yeahhhhh. I gotta watch that.
What Dave and Marc said sounds pretty reasonable to leetle me.
SOMETHING has to be done though before we don’t have an more ‘thinking, pondering and planning time’. Yes, we are most definitely at war with Islam.
Feb 13, 2009 - 2:03 pm 37. Robin_Shadowes:Delia, there is a picture, I don’t know if whether you have seen it or not. I absolutely love it and I’m sure you will too. Just google “ocean ground zero”. I hope to live long enough to see this dream come through one day.
Blessings from the non-nuclear and muzzie-infested al-Swedistan.
Feb 13, 2009 - 10:50 pm 38. Nomad:Well said, Delia
Feb 14, 2009 - 6:23 am 39. DonJoe:“Today, in a time of wars and rumors of wars emanating from the Islamic world — from the current conflict in Gaza, to the saber-rattling of nuclear-armed Pakistan and soon-to-be Iran — the need for non-Muslims to better understand Islam’s doctrines and objectives concerning war and peace….”
I appreciate this piece. However, I believe that; understanding “I AM”, Lord God Jehovah, of Abraham, Issac & Jacob, the Creator’s doctrines and objectives are much more important than understanding the counterfeit, Islam.
Therefore know this day, and consider [it] in your heart, that the LORD Himself [is] God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; [there is] no other. (Deuteronomy 4:39)
Do the Qur’an and Muhammad affirm or reject the Bible? Should a Muslim read the Bible?
In the Qur’an, Muhammad commanded Muslims to read the Bible.
What is the Muslim’s guide? If hadiths or imams differ with the Qur’an, which would you believe? Most likely, the Qur’an is your ultimate authority. As a Muslim, does the Qur’an give you permission to learn from the Bible?
“Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light” (Surah 5:44a).
“And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah – a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)” (Surah 5:46).
“It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)” (Surah 3:3).
“And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah, for then wert thou of the losers” (Surah 10:95).
If you are a Muslim, you have no excuse not to read the Bible. The Qur’an commands and praises it. Why don’t you start today? Begin with the Gospel of Luke which tells the story of Isa. He alone can give you assurance of paradise.
As the Qur’an says, reading the Bible will answer your questions: “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt” (Surah 10:94).
To the False religion Islam an her apologist:
‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “On that day it shall come to pass [that] thoughts will arise in your mind, and you will make an evil plan: You will say, ‘I will go up against a land of unwalled villages; I will go to a peaceful people, who dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates’– to take plunder and to take booty, to stretch out your hand against the waste places [that are again] inhabited, and against a people gathered from the nations, who have acquired livestock and goods, who dwell in the midst of the land. (Ezekiel 38:10-12)
“And it will come to pass at the same time, when Gog comes against the land of Israel,” says the Lord GOD, “[that] My fury will show in My face. For in My jealousy [and] in the fire of My wrath I have spoken: I will call for a sword against Gog throughout all My mountains,” says the Lord GOD. “Every man’s sword will be against his brother. And I will bring him to judgment with pestilence and bloodshed; I will rain down on him, on his troops, and on the many peoples who [are] with him, flooding rain, great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.
Thus I will magnify Myself and sanctify Myself, and I will be known in the eyes of many nations. Then they shall know that I [am] the LORD.”
Feb 14, 2009 - 9:10 am 40. Fred:Great article.We have to defeat radicalism but also mindful of the fact that there are millions in that region who are pro-West and tired of radicalism themselves.
Feb 14, 2009 - 12:25 pm 41. Delia:37. Robin_Shadowes,
Googled and saved to my HD. Blessings back.
~
I’ll re-clarify: Islam is malevolent with only the most wicked, evil and cruel intentions. There is absolutely NO reasoning with these sleestack. Their hell-bent mantra is to conquer/kill/destroy/rule. While we sit around watching c-span on our fancy flat-screen televisions, the war mongering sand-pit cretins are planning our demise as they crouch angrily in mud-huts.
Beware the moon, stay clear of the moors, stick to the roads and my God be with you.
-
Yes, some of that was meant to be facetious.
Feb 14, 2009 - 8:20 pm 42. Ryan Jamil:I totaly disagree with Mr Irahim .One can pick quotations from every holy book or law and build alegiances.What we must follow is the history.The Isalmic world since 1400 years was multireligious and multiethnic state. Chistians and Jews coexisted with Moslems through all the histoy of the rejion,while in Euorope Spain committed enocide agaist Moslems and Jews after the fall of Granada the capital of the Andalucias moslem state in Eiperia and expelled them out of their homeland.In spite of the Euoropean invasions called Crusade war during the 11 and 12 th centuries, the coexitance continued between Moslems and Christians and Jews .When Salah eddin liberated Jerusalem he called the jews to come back to te city and kept the churches and mosques.
Feb 15, 2009 - 1:53 am 43. Delia:Euorpoearn Nazis and Fascists committed genocide against Jews in the Halacust while Jews were living normally in Arab countries.
According to history Islam was the religion of forgiveness and coexistence with others.
The real problem of Islam is one subconfession the Salafists of the Saudi Wahabi.This confession was widely supported by the US and the western establshments ,it produced Taliban which grew up under US control in Pakisan and used ia a holy war against the former Soviet union ,turned to be alongwith its sister Alqaeda hostile to the US and all the free world .The US is still keeping silence on the thousands of schools teachig Salafi law financed by the first ally of the US and the west Saudi Arabia.While on the other side we see a great campaign against the people of Palestine who are seeking independence and return to their homeland since 60 years ,they were subject to many lies by the UN resolutions and the last Bushs lie of realising a viable Palestinian state.Why directing all this ideological attack against Hamas which represents the Palestinian people through democratic elections monitored by the team of former US president Jimmy Carter.Why turning attention from he horrible massacres committed by the Israeli Army during the recent attack on Gaza and other massacres in lebanon,Palestine,Egypt and others.why turning attention from the ally of Israel and the US, Saudi Arabia and its support and finance to the Salafists all over the world in order to turn Islam from a relgion of forgiveness and Jihad for AL HAQ i.e the struggle for right to Wahabi Salafi Qaedi Islam .That is the point .
42. Ryan Jamil,
“According to history Islam was the religion of forgiveness and coexistence with others.”
~
HUHHHHHHHHHH? WHO’s ‘history’ would that be and according to whom? Please, grow a BRAIN.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/19109
http://www.catholic.com/library/endless_jihad.asp
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
Feb 15, 2009 - 5:58 am 44. Ryan Jamil:Delia I suppose you have never known that Christians are living in Moslem world with Moslems since 1400 years.I donot blame you when president Bush was surprised by the attack againt churches in Iraq and asked if there are christians in that country.Go to history and read about the poets , scientists and historians who are Christians and Jews in the Arab history.Right now there are Christians( 1 million in Lebanon,2 millions in Syria ,1 million in Iraq ,8 millions in Egypt and hundred thousands inJordan and palestine).Those are Christians since 2000 years.This is a hitorical evidence no one can ignore how strong was the propaganda.
Feb 15, 2009 - 6:58 am 45. Delia:hat about supporting he dark confession in Saud Arabia and Pakistan.
#4, since you’re obviously too damned lazy to read any of the links I provided…here ya go, stupid:
“The use of force and the official endorsement of it have been a constant throughout the history of Islam.
Western governments have persistently affirmed since 9-11 that Islam is not a violent religion. They have done it so systemically and have asserted it so emphatically, that for those who are not experts on the field, it seems as an undeniable truth.
The facts nonetheless, say something very different.
History reveals that over the centuries, Islamists have systemically attacked any nation that did not practice their religion. The simple fact that a country was not Islamic was enough to justify launching an assault on it.
It started with the birth of the religion in the seventh century, for Mohammed violently imposed his will on Arabia. In the immediate decades after his death, Muslim armies subdued the rest of the Middle East.
Then, they attacked the fringes of the Western world as they tried to overrun the Byzantine Empire in the mid seventh century.
After that, they set their sights on southern Europe and in the eighth century, Arab armies invaded Spain and Portugal. That aggression went on for almost 800 years.
In the ninth century they attacked Italy and took over Sicily. Fortunately, their presence there did not last as long as in the Iberian Peninsula and a century later they were expelled.
Almost simultaneously to the attacks on the West, were those in the East. In the early eighth century, they invaded the north of India and during the following centuries they pierced further into the South Asian subcontinent.
Since that creed ultimately demands from its followers that all the inhabitants of the world be converted to Islam, Muslim leaders were not satisfied with South Asia. Soon after, their armies were once again on the march and they went into Central Asia, China, and Southeast Asia.
From the fourteenth century onwards, the Ottoman Turks overtook the Arabs in their enthusiasm to spread Islam by the sword and rapidly conquered lands beyond their homeland in present day Turkey. At the height of their power in the 16th and 17th centuries, their empire spanned three continents, controlling much of Southern Europe, the Near East, North Africa, parts of Eastern Europe, and parts of Central Asia. Their
empire lasted for many centuries and came to an end only until the twentieth century.
From the sixteenth to the twentieth century nonetheless, the biggest empires were not Muslim, but European. European countries took over the world in that period, but it was not to impose a religion. Although the Christian religion ended up displacing the local ones in the American continent, Oceania and much of Africa, that was not the prime goal of the conquerors. Eventually, religion stopped playing even a minor role in the colonial policies. On top of that, Western penetration brought more advanced technology to those lands, which improved living conditions.
That was not the case with the Muslims. Through history, their only goal was to brutally impose a religion that has no scientific credibility. Islam is not the only creed without scientific credibility. All religions are equally brutish and have always conspired against progress. However, Christianity has been for some time sidelined by secularism and is no longer capable of significantly hampering progress.
Islam on the other hand still does. It still demands total control over policy making and frequently succeeds in running governments. When that happens, the effects on development are deleterious.
Up to the Western invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, that nation was the most Islamic of Muslim countries. It was also the most technologically backward, the poorest in the world, and the one that worst treated women.”
Now. STFU! Pretty please.
gah!
Feb 15, 2009 - 9:50 am 46. Delia:Correction: #45 was meant @ #44
Feb 15, 2009 - 9:51 am 47. Ryan Jamil:Delia
Feb 15, 2009 - 10:27 pm 48. Old spook:45#
If all this happened through history and there are still different religions coexisting with each other in Islamic countries I mentioned above, then I thank you for this great proof for the forgiveness of Islam which inspite of the wars you mentioned kept the coexistance.
Go back to the Salafi confession of the Saudis which generated Alqaeda and Taliban and Salafi schools in Pakistan ,Delia I say this is the great danger it is financed by Saudi Arabia longtime ago and still with agreement and sometimes support and other times keeping silent by he US and the west.write as much as your want and lobby against those people and against who support them in the US, then you are doing the right.Those are not real Moslems and they are terrorising the world alongwith their secret allies in the west .Do not mix them with the freedomfighters in Palestine who are seeking independance since 60 years and were driven out of their homeland and terrorised by attacks of the sophisticated Israeli army which committed massacres against people killing women and children in the recent atack on Gaza.
Ryan Jamil, although I agree with you on many points about coexistence of muslims and non-muslims, I strongly disagree about the recent attacks in Gasa Strip. No country has to put up with continued rocket attacks on their people. The Hamas were told what would happen if they continued and made their own choise. That they also chose to hide behind schools and hospitals was not the fault of the Israelis. It seems that the Hamas are not above stealing from their own people. The UN had to stop the delivery of relief supplies because of the thefts.
Feb 16, 2009 - 3:05 am 49. Ryan Jamil:Old spook
Feb 16, 2009 - 4:46 am 50. Old spook:48#
All the primitive hand made missiles were launched to respond Israeli killing of civilians in Gaza.It is a weapon of necessity to resist an occupying force,do not expect from people being killed by an army equipped with sophisticated weapons and hunting people by drones and helis ,to salute the killers ,yet expect them to find any weapon that may deter the Israeli Army from killing.
If I remember correctly Gaza wasn’t occupied at the time and those missiles were not being aimed at military targets. Of course in the eyes of the Hamas, the Israelis haven’t any right to be there at all so I guess they think it is ok to aim their rockets (no matter how primative) at any israeli targets. Remember even a rock can kill,the weapon isn’t what makes it wrong it’s the person behind it.
Feb 16, 2009 - 6:26 am 51. JFM:Mr Ryan Jamil is here to give us a live illustration of the basic tenets of takiyah. For instance he is telling us that the poor Palestinians were just innocent victims of israeli aggression against their civilians. Of course we know it is the opposite, Palestinians have ever since 1948 tried to cause as many civilian victims as possible. It is them not the israelis who have placed bombs in pizzerias, it is them not the isarelis who have tried to bomb maternities, it is them not the israelis who danced in the streets when Sammi Kuntar crushed the skull of a four years old girl in cold blood and who instead of having his own mother spit at his face like Israelis would do hold him as a hero. If the Israelis had targeted civilians like Palestinians do or even being indifferent to opposite casualties there would have been tens of thousands of Palestina deaths. The only time it happenned was at the hands of the Jordanian Army…
I could disgress now about those people who hide behind their civilians or grab kids in the street to use them as human bombers, I could talk about bombs on mentally retarded boys but that would lead us out of subject.
So I will switch to a second aspect of Takiyah: the double moral standards. For instance they justify suicide bombings on the basis of the “stolen lands”. Let’s apply this logic to the Berbers and Saharaouis whose lands have been stolen. Let’s apply this logic to the rapes, murders and enslavings in Darfur. Let’s apply this logic to the Kurds whose lands were stolen under Saddam in addition of being gassed. Mr Jamil, how about applying your “Palestinian logic” to the people mentioned above as the bombers and with Arabs on receiving end? After all, just in Darfur there are over one hundred victims per Palestinian victim.
Oh and BTW, when are you going to compensate the Oriental Jews you expelled in 1948 and who lived all over the Middle East since before the Arabs and even before the Romans?
Feb 16, 2009 - 9:11 am 52. ryan jamil:Mr JFM 52#it seems that you see one side of the scene .All the massacres committed against Darfur people(do you know that they are Moslem Arabs)or any other people including the Kurds who were attacked by chemical weapons when Saddam Hosein was an ally to the US and the scholars,all are disapproved crimes.the same is the killing of all civilians Arab and Israeli.
yet the question that you should raise why the Palestinian people were driven out from their homeland and occupied and persecuted by Israeli forces?why Israel built the wall and did not abide by the resolution of the international court of justice to eliminate it because it is illegal?why 4 millions of Palestinians still live in diaspora (look in the UNRWA survey) inside camps in bad conditions deprived from the right of return home according to resolution242 and 194?why still Israel occupy parts of Syria and Lebanon and annex the golan to its territories?have you seen in July 2006 on the CNN Israeli children writing on the artillery bombs letters of threat to the children of Lebanon?is this the way to raise children on hatred and racism?come and visit Israel and see the apartheid just the same of south Africa?
about Taqya it is a practise of some Moslems and Jews when the are subject of tyrans . It is not so wide in the Moslem practices until Mr Ibrahim wants to deal with as the discovering of America.
My dear you undergo heavy propaganda and I hope that you balance your vision before issuing judgments on persecuted ,beleagured people.
9
Feb 16, 2009 - 10:58 am 53. Ryan Jamil:51#
Old spook
Just I want to say Gaza is occupied since 1967.The Israelli army redployed its forces in 2005 under the resistance attacks and it remained under siege and continious attacks by helis , drones and incursions.again all the missiles were respond to Israeli killings,they are the available means of legitimate self defense.
Feb 16, 2009 - 11:58 am 54. JFM:Mr Jamil
You lied as it could be expected. Resolution 242 calls for withdrawing of territories not of the territories.
Lets’s remind that in 1967 there was an Arab agression to Israel (blockade is an act of war) a genocidal war (Arabs made no mistery of their intentions) who went wrong for them. An le’s remind that there is no provision telling that if you make an act of agression towards your neighbour you will be allowed to walk away without paying for it. If Germans lost Prussia for their agressions in WWII I see no reason why Arabs should not lose Gaza and Cosjordania.
Did I mention that I recognize zero authority to an unelected body where people like demented Kim Jong IL, genocider Sadam, canibal Idi Amin Dada and last but not least twenty somethiong Arab dictators or petty “kings” are allowed to vote. UN is neithefr apralemant (unelected) nor a court because one of the first tenets in a court (jurys who are not kin of olne iof the parts is not present). In fact I think UN is a wrong formula, that is broken beyond repair, that it should be terminated.
And now let’s return to the Sahraouis. Are they allowed to blow away people in Rabat for Morocco’s occupation? Are Kurds allowed to blow people for the occupation of Kurdish land not to mention the Al Quida bombings and Saddam’s gassings? Are the pêople of Darfour and South Sudan allowed to lob missiles over Cairo (1) and take, revenge for rapes and enslavings? Or Arabs a herrensvolk allowed to steal land, rape, enslave and murder but immune to retaliation?
(1) You tell that 9/11 was legitimate due to America’s support of Israel. Now applying your logic it is legitimate to attack the Arab countries since they support Sudan’s genocidal regime.
Feb 16, 2009 - 3:13 pm 55. Parthicus:lol. There is so much taquiyaing going on everywhere. Is that a dance like the macarena?
The principle of deception is a common practice among military/political leaders. Jamil is not going to admit he is lying, because he doesn’t believe he is lying. He does not know the whole truth and hence cannot practice taquiyah knowingly.
Debate with Palestinians, radical muslims, the particularly extreme leftist section of the liberals, or the particularly extreme rightist section of the conservatives and you will realize that they all believe in the truth of their own cause. Most strong believers of any side do not let the fact gets in the way of their cherished “truth”.
As for the impolite treatment of Mr. Jamil in this section, I would suggest you guys not treat him as a boldfaced liar. His statement on the Saudis carries much merit in that they are the prime financiers of Islamic extremism everywhere. In medical terms they would be the sources of this cancer that is metastasizing everywhere.
Notice also his statement not to group the Palestinians with Al-Qaeda. I have nothing but disdain for Al-Qaeda, and I also am not a huge fan of Palestinian decision making; however, our tendency to lump all muslims fighting against non-muslims together is a fatal flaw in our strategy.
Confusing Jamil’s support for the Palestinians, with pro-al qaeda Taqiya is a mistake. It simplifies the complexity of the conflict: Israel-Palestine, Saudi Arabia (friend?), Pakistan (Ally?), Syria (enemy), Iran (potential ally?), Lebanon (?), Afghanistan (opportunity?), Iraq (new ally?), Turkey (modern ally becoming more fundamentalist), Kurds (ally). Just listing the number of factions in Iraq that are pro or anti American would be mind boggling. It is possible that Mr. Jamil feels strong support for the Palestinians while not supporting Al-Qaeda. Is that thought so illegitimate? To support a people who are suffering and in poverty and have nothing to fight with but homemade rockets? Is that dissimilar to my own personal support for the Jews who I feel have been unfairly persecuted for thousands of years and have courageously triumphed against overwhelming odds, who would do anything to protect their families?
I would suggest you guys stop wasting time declaring Mr. Jamil a liar and have a genuine dialogue with him so that we may understand the nature of our possible allies and enemies in this war, the most important war of our generation. (oh and also stop wasting time with Israel and Palestine, that debate has been going for years and it’s not going to get solved until the Palestinian people are willing to sue for peace or the Jews somehow become too weak to resist. Right or wrong does not matter any more.)
-Parthicus
Feb 16, 2009 - 8:54 pm 56. JFM:Mr Jamil
Darfur people aren’t Arabs but Black. And that is one of my problems. They are second (or third) class Muslims. BTW, long time ago I read part of the book about war of a such Al Hindi written around 1400AD. Unfortunately I cannot remember the title or the exact name of the author. I only know he was born in what we call Pakistan. But I remember the following haddith he quotes: “Treat the Arab as an Arab and the mixed blood like a mixed blood: the Arab is entitled to two shares (of booty) and the mixed blood to one”.
We could also speak about Spain. Like you know the Arab occupation lasted for eight centuries. That makes a lot of caliphs and amirs. Also after Al Mansur’s death, Cordoba’s caliphate split into several small kingdoms, called taifas because they had to pay taifas to the Christians in order to not be invaded (after Caliphate had done the same to Christians). That makes still more caliphs and amirs. But none of them was ever a Muladi, that is a Spanish muslim. All of them were Arabs except in the few places where the Royal Guard or the Army revolted and placed a Berber or a Slavic on the throne. Gives to think isnt’ it?
All of this to explain that being Muslims has never protected people as soon as they were dark skinned enough
Feb 17, 2009 - 2:19 am 57. Ryan Jamil:JFM 54#
First of all it is not polite to say that I lie.Idid not lie .I ask you where did I say that 9 11 is legitimate.This is misleading I said and I insist that 9 11 is committed by allies to the US, the Salafi Wahabi Qaeda in Saudi Arabia(do you still remember that 15 out of 19 terrorists were from your allies the Saudis),and they are still receiving support through financing more tham 1000 schools in Pakistan to teach the Qaeda Salafi Wahabi belief(now it seems that they are able to take over Afgaitan,thanks to this suppot).Again Sadam Hosein was an ally to the US when he committed massacres by using chemical weapons( likely Mr Ramsfield who was in continious touch with Saddam is aware of the source of those weapons)with a silence in the US and some scholars.This is not a way to think and discuss,for 242 you know that in Russian and Chinese languages ther are no the i.e definit article and the Arab version was with the(here is the real deceit).This kind of thinking has led the US to wars recently in Iraq and Afganistan with out any vision of what the nation is doing.You,sir among others could not listen to the other point of view ,you just label people terrorist ,lier and wage wars then you got surprised by the results and by the recession.
Continue thnking this way and be more arrogant towards others and the US will turn in 10 years to a new Brazil if we are lucky
9
9
Feb 17, 2009 - 3:40 am 58. JFM:Mr Jamil
I apologize for calling you a liar: the 242 resolution wording is ambiguous enough that many people in the west believe in good faith that it mandated evacuation of “the territories” instead of territories. But anyway is point is quite moot to me since I don’t recognize the legitimacy of an entity based on the formula “one state, one vote” no matter how unimportant or how unrepresentative and corrupt its government. Nietzche told that the state was “the coldest of the cold monsters” but UN is far colder because unlike states its immoral actions are not limited by elections or dangers of revolt.
Also I disagree mentioning the Saudi entity as an ally since the Saudi entity has never been the ally of anyone but itself: in 1992 they already looked with contempt at the people who had saved their worthless skins from Saddam just a few months before. (Not to mention that the legitimate rulers of Maccah and Madinah are the Hashemites)
For Saddam himself America gave him some information and sold him very limited quantities of weapons because he was facing an enemy (Iran) who looked far more dangerous. Not unlike to what Stalin got in WWII except for Stalin getting a far better treatment. But if you want to know which countries were Saddam’s allies look at numbers: China, Soviet Union and France sold twenty to forty times more to Saddam than America or the UK.
Feb 17, 2009 - 5:57 am 59. ryan jamil:JFM
Feb 17, 2009 - 9:31 am 60. Old spook:Thanks for apologising .It is, my dear, an exchange of ideas not a game of accusations and recording points as other comments contain .What I mean is never stop on a taboo in terms of discussion .There are always points of view you feel strange from the environment you live in.The most important is to listen think and dicuss .Iam not saying that Iam always in the right side ,perhaps some constructive arguments are useful to find out the reality.I hope others who read this comment better understand and listen before we all miss the train.
Finally donot underestimate what is going on in Pakistan.
I am much more concerned with the developments in Pakistan than in Gaza. The struggle in Gaza will go on for a long time because the people can’t jump over their own shadow to share together a common piece of desert.
Feb 18, 2009 - 12:50 am 61. JFM:In Pakistan the Taliban have aquired a good part of the country, creating a haven for their fight in Afgahnistan. The Taliban have proven that they do not want any of the western freedoms that we cherish, except money. The Shar’iah Law applies only to moslems but since they want everyone to be moslems they want to force their law on everyone. As this is happening in a land that has the A-bomb, it is very disturbing.
Ryan Jamil
Pakistan’s equation is very simple: its survival depends on two conditions: jihadizing its population and on Afghanistan being a failed state. Its survival and the power and well being of its ruling class.
Pakistan is an artificial country made from components (Pashtuns, Sindhs, Punjabis, Balochs) who have little love for one another and whose a ruling class is mostly formed by Punjabis. How do you make such people stay together so you the punjabi elite can get a slice of everything not from just Punjab but from Pakistan plus the power and influence (this gets you American aid) from ruling a big state? You fanaticize your population. You cover the country with madrassas specially in the lands of the dangerous minorities.. You tighten links with Saudia Arabia and open the country to wahabist influence (the links between Deobandi people and the wahabis date from 19th century and the British Army had to quell several revolts instigated by the wahabis), you make “Jihad” the battle cry of your army and of course you incite hate against the infidels and have conflicts with India while airing imaginary plots from India, United States and Israel for destroying the country. This way people will think that is not a so big deal to not having their own country because “we are all Muslims”, or from being robbed by punjabis because “we must stay united in face of kafirs”.
And then there is Pakistan Afghan’s problem. For one side Pakistan has ever had the ambition to gobble or at least vassalize Aghanistan (Pakistan is an acroym of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Iamu, Sindh) in order to get man power and strategic depth for a war against India On the other side Pakistan has tens of millions of Pashtun subjects who are ethnically linked with Afghans (Pashtun and Afghan were synonyms until 192x). Moreover the legal basis of Pakistan’s presence in Pashtun territory is tenuous at best since it is based on the Durand treaty between Afghanistan and the British Raj who expired in the 90s. Furthermore the bellicose nature of Pashtuns and the difficult terrain would make a revolt particularly dangerous and difficult to quash. Pakistn deals with the Pashtun problem by giving them a privileged status: they are exempted from taxes but still can establish themselves anywhere within Pakistan, they have self rule in the NWFP, have an easier access to the highest ranks of the Army than other minorities. But this is not enough: in order to ensure that its Pashtuns don’t look towards Khabul Pakistan needs Afghanistan being poor, backwards, in semi-anarchy or with a fanatically islamist government and within it to favor those like Mullah Omar who in their dreams of caliphate have forgotten they are Afghans and that pesky Durand treaty.
All of the above means that Pakistan is a structural enemy in the WOT, that its interest lies in the western countries failing to stabilize Afghanistan and that the situation of the international force whose lines of communication and eventually retreat cross Pakistan is very dangerous. It is in west’s interest, but also in the interest of its populations impoverished by the rapacious elites and the privileges of the army to cause the implosion of Pakistan. How to do it without losing Afghanistan and depriving it from its nuclear teeth is easier said than done.
Feb 18, 2009 - 5:18 am 62. Kerry Arthur:This article and many of the comments have angered me. I have made little effort in the following to curb or conceal that anger save when I felt it overstepped the Sharia. That being the case I would understand if it is not published or kept but would by the same token be grateful to the moderators if it is since my anger is born out of concern for the author and the commenters as fellow human beings accountable before God.
Is this a joke? That was my first reaction to this piece. I’ve been Muslim for thirteen years, have been studying Islam since 1996, have learned Arabic, lived in Saudi Arabia, and currently reside in Jordan furthering my studies in Islamic theology and have never, not once, had to study a book, or commentary on this supposed “central”, “pivotal”, “doctrine” called Taqiyya. I recall reading some anti-Shiite material that made reference in a critical manner to a Shiite practice called Taqiya where Shiites conceal their sect when amongst Sunnis but that is about it.
This piece is sloppy and lacks references regarding it’s most critical claims. If “Taqiyya” is indeed a central doctrine that is universally accepted by Muslims then please provide me with a standard Sunni book of doctrine that exposits it. I doubt the learned author is even capable of directing me to any book of doctrine whatsoever it being the case that he can’t even decide what part of speech the word Shariah is! Also who is the author of the much touted Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam and where was it published?
I for one would never advocate deception except where it is allowed in Islam: as a stratagem on the battle field or in order to avoid harm and death. It is indeed unfortunate that people who claim to eschew legal rigidity can’t appreciate this simple wisdom in Islamic law. Surely one who appreciates the “thoroughly legalistic nature” of Islam can appreciate that it is categorically forbidden to deceive people except in those narrow circumstances I’ve mentioned. Yet you take references to a legal exception and present it to your readers as the rule. It is absolutely disgusting the way scholarship can be prostituted.
For those who are convinced that we, Muslims are bent on deceiving you: maybe we’ll tell you you have weapons of mass destruction when you don’t, maybe we’ll tell you we don’t torture when we do, let me clear the air on this point. We have no need to lie to people about our faith for it is nothing but truth and wisdom from God.
The holy prophet Muhammad like Moses, Jesus and others between them (God bless all and grant them peace) did not teach passivism for he was not so instructed by God. We Muslims do and will fight against those so blinded by misguidance that they can do nothing but cry lies to themselves and the rest of creation. Against such souls who may come from all creeds without exception reason fails and war is the only option. If anyone doubts the wisdom in that then I’ll simply point to this article and the majority of its comments and rest my case.
God bless you and guide you.
Feb 23, 2009 - 2:36 pm 63. leigh:Kerry: Ibn Kathir in commenting on 3:28 makes it clear that Muslims can act as hypocrites with their “enemies, friendly on the outside but hating on the inside. Jesus taught a completely different attiude and relationship with “enemies”, As you will know, havng studied Islam, the sirat and hadiths expose Islam’s role model as a brutal man.. If Mohammad were alive today ans practising his “arts” he would be in jail for conspiracy to murder(civilians I’m on about here, nor casulties in war). If Jesus were alive today Muslims would be seeking to kill him for blasphemy(shirk),
Feb 26, 2009 - 4:09 pm 64. anonymouse:@author
Are you sure that 4:29 (YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities: But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily Allah hath been to you Most Merciful! ) supports taqiya? If so how?
Mar 3, 2009 - 6:49 pm 65. Patrick:@ anonymouse
trade, traffic, mutual good-will (religion of peace?)
Nor kill or destroy yourselves: (thus suicide bombers are not Islamic?)
Jul 20, 2009 - 3:51 pm